lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Tracepoint proposal
Hi Mathieu,

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I've tried to read through the comments recently posted to this thread
> (sorry I don't have time to answer them all specifically right now, a
> lot of this makes a lot of sense). I've tried to come up with a
> proposal, let's name it "tracepoint", which should hopefully address the
> full scope of the problem. Please tell me if it makes sense. It should
> allow compile-time verification of dynamically linked-in and activated
> tracepoints. I'll work on an implementation ASAP.
>
> Mathieu
>
> Tracepoint proposal
>
> - Tracepoint infrastructure
> - In-kernel users
> - Complete typing, verified by the compiler
> - Dynamically linked and activated
>
> - Marker infrastructure
> - Exported API to userland
> - Basic types only
>
> - Dynamic vs static
> - In-kernel probes are dynamically linked, dynamically activated, connected to
> tracepoints. Type verification is done at compile-time. Those in-kernel
> probes can be a probe extracting the information to put in a marker or a
> specific in-kernel tracer such as ftrace.
> - Information sinks (LTTng, SystemTAP) are dynamically connected to the
> markers inserted in the probes and are dynamically activated.
>
> - Near instrumentation site vs in a separate tracer module
>
> A probe module, only if provided with the kernel tree, could connect to internal
> tracing sites. This argues for keeping the tracepoing probes near the
> instrumentation site code. However, if a tracer is general purpose and exports
> typing information to userspace through some mechanism, it should only export
> the "basic type" information and could be therefore shipped outside of the
> kernel tree.
>
> In-kernel probes should be integrated to the kernel tree. They would be close to
> the instrumented kernel code and would translate between the in-kernel
> instrumentation and the "basic type" exports. Other in-kernel probes could
> provide a different output (statistics available through debugfs for instance).
> ftrace falls into this category.
>
> Generic or specialized information "sinks" (LTTng, systemtap) could be connected
> to the markers put in tracepoint probes to extract the information to userspace.
> They would extract both typing information and the per-tracepoint execution
> information to userspace.

Your idea is good to me. I just worry about complexity.
if both tracepoint and marker add information to other sections,
both two functions cover each partially. Anyway, it depends
on implementation.:-)

> Therefore, the code would look like :
>
> kernel/sched.c:
>
> #include "sched-trace.h"
>
> schedule()
> {
> ...
> trace_sched_switch(prev, next);
> ...
> }
>
>
> kernel/sched-trace.h:
>
> DEFINE_TRACE(sched_switch, struct task_struct *prev, struct task_struct *next);
>
>
> kernel/sched-trace.c:
>
> #include "sched-trace.h"
>
> static probe_sched_switch(struct task_struct *prev, struct task_struct
> *next)
> {
> trace_mark(kernel_sched_switch, "prev_pid %d next_pid %d prev_state %ld",
> prev->pid, next->pid, prev->state);
> }
>
> int __init init(void)
> {
> return register_sched_switch(probe_sched_switch);
> }
>
> void __exit exit(void)
> {
> unregister_sched_switch(probe_sched_switch);
> }
>
>
> Where DEFINE_TRACE internals declare a structure, a trace_* inline function,
> a register_trace_* and unregister_trace_* inline functions :

Hmm, if so, DEFINE_TRACE() still needs next and prev.:-)

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-24 05:13    [W:0.234 / U:2.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site